steveire added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51192#1226282, @aaron.ballman wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51192#1226257, @steveire wrote: > > > How? This is 'private' code. I don't think it's worth changing that or > > creating a test with a huge amount of infrastructure in order to test this > > indirectly. > > > This is changing the observable behavior of the tool, so it should have tests > unless they're impossible to write. Yes. The current behavior is not tested. I agree that tests are better than no tests. >> Am I missing something? > > I'd probably pipe the diagnostic output to a temporary file that gets > FileChecked with strict whitespace to see if the underlines from the > diagnostic match the expected locations. We do this in a few Clang tests, > like SemaCXX\struct-class-redecl.cpp or Misc\wrong-encoding.c. Doesn't this require building-in a new check to clang-tidy which exists only for the purpose of the test? Otherwise how would a test similar to `SemaCXX\struct-class-redecl.cpp` work? What would be in the `RUN` line? Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D51192 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
